My worry wouldn’t be voter sup­pres­sion, it would be vote steal­ing.

So would mine. But they can’t pull it off in Pennsylvania. I think it’d be pretty hard to do in Virginia. Ohio and Florida, sure it could happen. But it doesn’t appear that those two states will be quite enough.

Your observations about the ease of stealing votes also underlines why the Republican arguments about “voter fraud” are unconvincing. If I wanted to influence an election, then manipulating the voting machines is much more efficient, much more effective, and much easier than convincing hundreds or thousands of people to show up at the polls and pretend to be someone else. For anyone who really and truly is interested in defending against election fraud, it’s those voting machine that need to be examined, not voter ID cards. Which just goes to prove that the people pushing “voter ID” really have no interest in preventing election fraud.

My worry wouldn’t be voter suppression, it would be vote stealing. I’m not in anyway a conspiracy theorist but given that voting machines can be so easily manipulated, and can’t be verified, there is very little stopping the election from being nakedly stolen — as long as the margin is fine enough that it’s believeable. Try it in 2008, and there would have been literally bloodshed and riots. Try it in 2004 (as an example, I’m not saying it definitely happened) and it would pass. For example, in 2004 Kerry won essentially every exit poll going. Now either all those exit polls were methodically flawed, or some skulduggery happened. Was it stolen? I don’t know. But if it’s not a blowout, do you trust the republicans to be honest enough to not steal the election?

1. The Left has not won a single meaningful election since 2008.  Not
one.  Defining, significant elections include the “Kennedy” seat in
Mass in ’09, governorships in NJ and VA, both Walker victories in WI,
the marriage amendment in my home state of NC, and the countless GOP
victories from the federal down to the local level in ’10.  

2. Polling is notoriously unreliable.  Too many examples to cite
there.  Here in NC, polls had the marriage amendment passing by 13
points; it won by 21.  The Walker ‘recall’ was too close to call on
election day and Walker wins by 7.

They are really in a panic on the right. When you are mostly counting on bad polls and dirty tricks to carry the day for you, that’s a very precarious position, because even the sleaziest of dirty tricks only work when an election is very, very close. And this thing is increasingly looking less close.

(Did I mention that PPP today has Obama up by a point in North Carolina? )

As for the NRO commenter, here’s something to consider. Republican insiders have been giving the “just wait” line for some time. Just wait until Romney gets enough delegates so that everyone else drops out and he can focus all of his attention on Obama. Just wait until the Republican National Convention. Now it’s: Just wait until the debates. Just wait until we do our October blitz of advertising. Just wait until you see the final election results…it’ll be just like Reagan vs. Carter.

Thus far, Mitt Romney has managed to turn each of these “just wait” opportunities into failures. Based on his previous debate performances, plus a ton of historical examples, it’s hard to see how Romney will dominate the debates against Obama. And the Reagan/Carter analogy falls down now that the conventions are over; Reagan’s appeal shot up after the conventions, when he took a big lead in the polls. Romney, not so much.

Now, the NRO guy is correct that voter ID laws will reduce the number of Democratic votes counted. But one can overestimate the degree of impact that will have. It’s enough to move the needle several tenths of a percent. In 2008, that would potentially have handed North Carolina, and maybe Indiana and/or Nebraska 2 to McCain. 27 electoral votes, tops. Yes, that’s 10% of electoral votes, and so it’s not inconsequential. For an election like 2000 or 2004, 27 electoral votes was enough to change the outcome. And, in 2004, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico were all close enough for voter ID to have changed the outcome…22 electoral votes.

Which states are close enough this time? Virginia, Iowa, Florida, and Ohio. Florida’s state election officials are already doing whatever they can to reduce Democratic votes (more than merely voter ID), and I expect the impact to be in excess of a percent there. The Ohio Secretary of State has been doing whatever he can as well, but it’s harder to discern the impact, since he’s had some of his initiatives stymied by the courts. Ohio was two points to the right of the national average in 2008. If we held the election right before the conventions, Ohio would probably have gone to Romney in the end. But if Obama can hold onto a lead of four points nationally, I’d expect him to carry Ohio despite the voter suppression efforts.

If Romney gets both Ohio and Florida, Obama needs 13 electoral votes from among the tossup states. Virginia would do it. Or a combination of Colorado and Iowa.

But this tells us that Romney must win both Ohio and Florida to have a realistic shot at it. The Ohio Secretary of State may be helping Romney in Ohio, but Romney is hurting Romney in Ohio.

His point (i) may or may not be true. However, judging by what we saw at the conventions, Democratic voters this year seem more enthusiastic about their candidate than Republican voters are about theirs.

Point (ii) is just wishful thinking, for which there is not a scrap of evidence.

Point (iii) is, of course, and admission that the intent of the new voter ID laws (and a host of other new laws and changes, such as fiddling with voting hours, reducing the number of polling places, and so on) is, in fact, vote suppression. Fortunately, the Democratic GOTV ground game is aware of this stuff, and should be able co combat it pretty effectively.

Point (iv) is, again, wishful thinking. It seems equally likely to me that a Republican ad blitz will piss voters off at the Republicans at least as much as it helps them.

I note that the NRO guy didn’t say “(v) we have better ideas” or “(v) voters will realize our detailed plans are better for America” or anything like that. Republicans have given up even pretending that they have an interest in governing. It’s simply all about winning.

i) doesn’t sound right. It didn’t work for Kerry.

ii) Silver has proved isn’t correct.

iii) maybe true, although I’d expand it to say “election skulduggery” in general

iv) seems a reach. He’s resting his main hopes on that? When none of Romney’s ads so far seems to have moved the dial (correct me if I’m wrong)?

So, it seems that the hopes rest on a sudden ad success where so far there is failure, or stealing the election (which may have been what happened in 2000 and 2004, so is certainly not out of the question).

Intrade now gives Obama a 17 point lead (almost 30 at IEM.)

PPP has a new poll with Obama up by 5 in OH.

So a “top Romney advisor” calls horseshit (literally, as Joe Biden would say ) and tells Rich Lowry, in essence, that “the other side is in a panic” and their own  internals show “a very favorable polling picture” for their guy. And one of the smarter commenters at NRO agrees, enumerating the four major factors they’re counting on to pull this election out in the end. Here is what they are:

The Romney advisor is correct because:
 
(i) the Democratic base is not as motivated by Obamalove as the Republican base is motivated by Obamahate

 (ii) true undecideds break for the challenger

 (iii) voter ID laws will reduce the number of Democratic votes counted
r>
(iv) an election-eve ad bomb will move the needle